"hard to know if such code was/wasn't influenced by GPL code", that's silly. You could say that about any code anywhere. I think it's just a weak excuse for NIH.

At the time this was a very legitimate concern. Loboris had claimed his repo was covered under the MIT license yet there were clear uses of GPL, violating the MIT claim.

Since he removed the GPL code this is probably now usable. There is a worry that it could be argued that viral nature of the GPL means that the whole repository became GPL at the point where he included any GPL code but I think this is specious. I believe that he had just not performed due diligence in checking licenses and inadvertently included it - removing it seems satisfactory to me. But IANAL.

As far as I'm aware the port of any Lobo features would be considered. However, as covered in other posts, it's not trivial as Lobo was able to take some liberties since his fork was only for ESP32. Further, while many people have requested Lobo features, few (none?) have stepped forward to submit PR's.

I have been trying to extract some features, most recently RMT, but found that it was easier to re-think the design and re-implement. It wasn't NIH, it was simply that the design I had in mind was very different to that found in the Lobo codebase.

Anyway, I just thought a little historical context might be worthwhile sharing...

Loboris apparently went through his code and cleaned out what little GPL there was back in 2018. But the remark by dpgeorge about it was made on Jul 25, 2019 so it looks like he still considers the repository tainted. Seems unjustified to me.

The point here is that MicroPython is used in commercial products, as are the products of George Robotics, so the legal issue is important. If you've followed discussions in the industry on the GPL, the received wisdom is that even if a developer has seen GPL code before writing his own version, his solution (and hence the entire codebase) could be challenged. Strict "clean room" conditions are required when re-implementing GPL code. The question is whether the Loboris port adopted this precaution.

The GPL is widely viewed as toxic to commercial enterprises, so extreme caution is advised.

If you've followed discussions in the industry on the GPL, the received wisdom is that even if a developer has seen GPL code before writing his own version, his solution (and hence the entire codebase) could be challenged. Strict "clean room" conditions are required when re-implementing GPL code. The question is whether the Loboris port adopted this precaution.

'Seen GPL code before writing his own version' wasn't the issue here. A small amount of GPL code had been included in the repository and then was removed. It had not been re-implemented. And in reality, nobody can determine what you may have seen. In my work in the industry it has been sufficient to ensure that no GPL code was present in shipped products.

'Seen GPL code before writing his own version' wasn't the issue here. A small amount of GPL code had been included in the repository and then was removed. It had not been re-implemented. And in reality, nobody can determine what you may have seen. In my work in the industry it has been sufficient to ensure that no GPL code was present in shipped products.

It's not so clean-cut. Is it possible to simply remove GPL code from a codebase? This Stack Exchange post highlights some of the different opinions on the topic.

The concept hinges around the fact that the presence of any GPL code added to a repo means that the entire codebase is covered by the GPL. As such any derivative work - even removal of the original offending code - needs to preserve the GPL over the whole codebase.

I think this is nuts but I can see the legal consistency. And just because you or I says that it's not relevant doesn't mean that it is... So I can understand the concern...

If a lawyer - or someone experienced in this particular domain - could chime in that'd be nice!

None of that has ever been challenged in court and I don't really care how many opinions about it have been posted online. Code that had appeared in a repository at some point doesn't poison all the rest of the code there forever. If that were the case no commercial product that was successfully scrubbed could ever legally ship. Surprised to see you take this stance on it.